BCS Inclusion is in Reach with Boise State

The basics of the BCS evaluation process have been published on the BCS website, but there specifics are not entirely clear. They say: “The evaluation data includes the following for each conference: (1) The ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) The final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and, (3) The number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.”



In an email interview with the Mountain West Connection a few weeks ago, BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock gave some important clues about exactly how this information is broken down and evaluated. It appears the three categories are evaluated separately and given equal weight, or as Hancock said, “a conference must finish in the top half of EACH category.” ...Also, he confirmed that if Boise State were added to the Mountain West during the evaluation, their data would be added to that new conference.



Now that the final regular season rankings have been released, we can see how the Mountain West stacks up to earn their auto-bid. As they are evaluated separately, we will look at each category separately. Obviously, these numbers will change with the addition of the data from the other two years.



1. The ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, 2008-2009 average



1. SEC 1.5

1. Big 12 1.5

3. MWC 5

4. Pac-10 6

5. Big East 7.5

5. WAC 7.5

7. Big Ten 8

8. ACC 11.5

9. MAC 26

10. CUSA 0

11. Sun Belt 0



* MWC + Boise State = 5



2. The number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year, 2008-2009 average



1. Big Ten

0.36



2. Pac-10

0.35



3. Big 12

0.33



3. MWC

0.33



5. Big East

0.31



6. SEC

0.29



7. ACC

0.25



8. WAC

0.11



9. MAC

0.04



10. CUSA

0



11. Sun Belt

0



* MWC + Boise State = 0.40



According to the MWC Connection’s interview, this is really the percentage of the conference that is ranked. Mr. Hancock said that this data “is averaged so that the number of teams in the conference does not affect the rankings.” The average percentage is 21.5 percent, and the MWC is easily above that. Adding Boise State would mean that over the last two years, the Mountain West has ended the regular season with 40 percent (four teams from the hypothetical 10-team league) ranked in the BCS top 25. That would be best performance out of any college conference in this category.



3. The 2008-2009 final regular-season rankings of ALL conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year



1. SEC

38.38



2. ACC

40.39



3. Big East

44.34



4. Big 12

45.70



5. Pac-10

48.16



6. Big Ten

50.33



7. MWC

60.32



8. WAC

73.61



9. CUSA

81.24



10. MAC

84.90



11. Sun Belt

96.28



* MWC + Boise State = 55.03



http://bleacherreport.com/articles/306305-adding-boise-state-solidifies-the-mwcs-case-for-automatic-bcs-bid

I don't get it. :skeptic:



It looks like to me, that the MWC has made a pretty solid statement WITHOUT Boise State. Maybe I read through it too quickly.

Ranking #7 in the 3rd catagory--that wouldn't keep us out? It wasn't clear to me on that requirement where the breakoff point was.



It's too bad that the MWC bylaws didn't include a rule that if you remained at such and such of a national ranking (say you had to maintain at least a an average ranking of 75-80 nationally), then you COULD, at the discretion of the remaining members, be dropped from the conference. While I have not been in favor of dropping anyone from the MWC because I like the regionality of our conference and my belief was always that if they had the same resources that many of the perennial BCS bottom-dwellers had, then they wouldn't be as bad as they are year in and year out.



There is no sense in an athletic program bringing down the whole conference for the sake of programs that cannot sustain success because of their geographic location (i.e. Laramie (even though they were at least 6-6 this season) or someone like Albuquerque).



I concure too with the thought that if we can get to where we need to get without adding BSU, then it would be to our advantage to do so.

great post. One question though,



I thought BCS was an average over 4 years and not just the most recent year. Shouldn't we be looking at four year averages instead of just one?

The next BCS evaluation period is only looking at the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. So it is proper to only look at the 2008 and 2009 seasons.

kitic77 wrote:
The next BCS evaluation period is only looking at the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. So it is proper to only look at the 2008 and 2009 seasons.

We're half way there, so we'll see what the next two years brings for the conference

Another important rule: Assuming BSU joins the MWC, in order for their wins to count they have to

1) play one season in the MWC (2011) AND

2) give the WAC one year notice (prior to 2010 season).



If anything is going to happen, it will happen sometime between the end of the bowl season and before the start of next season. My guess is that BSU and the MWC would want to announce it before signing day, but if not some time this spring.

If the MWC is going to invite Boise so that it can count it's records and rankings for the next BCS evaluation the invitation will have to come this off-season. That way Boise can start conference play in 2011. My only hesitation in bringing Boise in is do they keep Peterson. The way Hawkins has struggled at Colorado it makes me think that it was Peterson and not Hawkins who built Boise. Is Boise going to be able to keep Peterson? I'd hate to bring in Boise and have them return to the world of the also-rans. Of course, if adding Boise gets us an auto-bid, I'm not sure it matters at that point anymore.

TCU will carry the torch in 2010 as well, and I hope Utah and BYU can both be solid. I expect us to rock in 2011. So it does look good for us.

byutx wrote:
Another important rule: Assuming BSU joins the MWC, in order for their wins to count they have to

1) play one season in the MWC (2011) AND

2) give the WAC one year notice (prior to 2010 season).



If anything is going to happen, it will happen sometime between the end of the bowl season and before the start of next season. My guess is that BSU and the MWC would want to announce it before signing day, but if not some time this spring.

Exactly. We'll all know by the beginning of next season what is going on. Even if we don't add them, our numbers look pretty darn good and we stack up pretty darn well vs the AQs.

kitic77 wrote:
If the MWC is going to invite Boise so that it can count it's records and rankings for the next BCS evaluation the invitation will have to come this off-season. That way Boise can start conference play in 2011. My only hesitation in bringing Boise in is do they keep Peterson. The way Hawkins has struggled at Colorado it makes me think that it was Peterson and not Hawkins who built Boise. Is Boise going to be able to keep Peterson? I'd hate to bring in Boise and have them return to the world of the also-rans. Of course, if adding Boise gets us an auto-bid, I'm not sure it matters at that point anymore.

I don't get your concern.



BSU has been good for over a decade with 3 different coaches. Koetter went 20-5 his last 2 years at BSU. Both Hawkins and Peterson were very good at BSU. In my opinion there are more of a known commodity in terms of football excellence than Utah.

declocoug wrote:
I don't get it. :skeptic:



It looks like to me, that the MWC has made a pretty solid statement WITHOUT Boise State. Maybe I read through it too quickly.

I agree, the MWC is doing just fine without BSU.

The MWC's bowl games are going to be so huge this year for how we look in the long run.

TCU, BYU, and Utah victories would improve these statistics drastically for us.

AF and Wyoming wins wouldn't hurt either.

Here's what I'm hoping for: The Big Ten takes either Mizzou or Nebraska and the Big XII invites BYU to the Big XII North, where we have a good shot at going to the Big XII championship every year!

mormonrasta wrote:

If the MWC is going to invite Boise so that it can count it's records and rankings for the next BCS evaluation the invitation will have to come this off-season. That way Boise can start conference play in 2011. My only hesitation in bringing Boise in is do they keep Peterson. The way Hawkins has struggled at Colorado it makes me think that it was Peterson and not Hawkins who built Boise. Is Boise going to be able to keep Peterson? I'd hate to bring in Boise and have them return to the world of the also-rans. Of course, if adding Boise gets us an auto-bid, I'm not sure it matters at that point anymore.

I don't get your concern.



BSU has been good for over a decade with 3 different coaches. Koetter went 20-5 his last 2 years at BSU. Both Hawkins and Peterson were very good at BSU. In my opinion there are more of a known commodity in terms of football excellence than Utah.

Good points. Was Peterson brought in by Koetter or Hawkins?

Schmoe wrote:
Here's what I'm hoping for: The Big Ten takes either Mizzou or Nebraska and the Big XII invites BYU to the Big XII North, where we have a good shot at going to the Big XII championship every year!

I think TCU gets the invite before BYU does right now. Even in the North. They could put OKState up north and TCU in south. More natural fit, and that would stink for the MWC. We would be forced to add Boise State then, just to look better for BCS inclusion. I hope the Big 10 does no poach at Big 12 team. I do not like that scenario at all.

The Big 10 is looking at expansion. If they do not get Notre Dame, they may try to add a team from the Big 12 or Big East, and that will have a domino effect for sure, especially if it is a Big 12 team. Adding Boise State now might be a move to pre-empt a PR hit that the conference could take it TCU jumps to the Big 12. Add BSU because you want to, not because you have to because you lost a team. Having sai that, going to 10 teams makes zero sense. If you expand, go to 12, and a conference title game in football. Makes more sense all the way around.

Has anybody taken into account the fact that adding BSU could hurt our rankings? It could just make it harder to have three teams ranked. we could end up beating each other up like the big east acc tend to do?



not sure if it hurts us enough, but it is something to think about. i am still not convinced we need or want boise state.

What no one has every been able to adequately explain to me is why a team in the Big 12 would want to join the Big Ten. I'm a Big Ten fan--I've been one all my life. Notre Dame is an obvious addition, but they haven't needed the Big Ten. I don't know if that will continue, but that will depend on NBC (I don't know when the TV contract is up). Usually it's been mentioned that Missouri would joing the Big Ten. Why? Because they think they can win the conference more often. They have more schools closer to them geographically in the Big 12, so I don't understand why people think they would be attracted.



I think the probability of teams from the Big East (Pitt and Cincinnati for certain) would be natural targets because it is obvious that in football the Big Ten is a better conference. BB wise, the Big East holds their own.



It could be a very interesting summer related to these issues.

The only reason I could see leaving the Big 12 for the Big 10 is bowl money. Thg Big 10 has had 21 BCS bowl bids and the Big 12 only 17. It's not a huge difference, but you do seem to have better odds of getting a second BCS team from the Big 10 than Big 12.